Here are some videos
where Hillary supporters describe the Chicago-style voter fraud that
helped Obama get the Democratic nomination. And with the FBI investigating ACORN's role in voter fraud across the nation, we naturally wonder whether this is going on in Minnesota.

Well, Minnesota Majority obtained voter rolls from the Secretary of State and found evidence of possible voter fraud
in thousands of voter records. Mark Ritchie retaliated by accusing a
Minnesota Majority volunteer of voter intimidation for contacting a
voter. Apparently, Mr. Ritchie is not concerned about voter fraud in
Minnesota.

I called the Secretary of State's office to ask what it is doing
about the red flags raised by the Minnesota Majority. I was transferred
from one person to another, and told that I needed to talk to someone
in the "voter fraud" division, but that person was out of the office
but would call me back.

The person who called me back told me that the Secretary of State
had no authority to investigate voter fraud, and that it was the
counties that had that responsibility. The obvious next question was
why does the Secretary of State's office have a "voter fraud" division.
Maybe they're changing the name of that division to "voter
intimidation."

October 28, 2008

Courtesy of Anthony Watts,
we read that solar panel manufacturing could create a far greater
danger of increased greenhouse gases than anything anyone had imagined
so far. Because of a greenhouse gas emitted in the cleaning of
electronics that is a part of manufacturing solar panels:

On Lubos Motls The Reference Frame he has as pointed out
that a greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and
HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning the
electronics, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide.

The concentration of NF3 in the atmosphere was artificially
increased by a factor of 20 during the last two decades. The
measurements of the concentration surpassed the previous estimates by a
factor of five.

According to the Scripps Institute; “ the present 5,400 tons in the
atmosphere…is on the rise at 11 percent per year” - that will stay
there for 700+ years - creates the equivalent warming of all Finland’s
CO2 emissions.

According to Lubos, given the fact that the solar panels produce
about the same percentage of the global energy as Finland, it is
reasonable to guess that the state-of-the-art solar panels that would
replace fossil fuels would cause a comparable amount of warming per
Joule as fossil fuels.

So let’s just say - everything causes global warming, and leave it at that.

Given the fact that the solar panels produce about the
same percentage of the global energy as Finland, it is reasonable to
guess that the state-of-the-art solar panels that would replace fossil
fuels would cause a comparable amount of warming per Joule as fossil
fuels. ;-)

October 25, 2008

Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama, the DNC and the Federal Election Commission has been dismissed by the federal district court judge in Philadelphia on the basis of standing. (A poor copy of the court's decision is here,
if you can read it). This means that the judge refuses to rule on the
actual facts at issue because he doesn't think that Berg has
demonstrated, even assuming that Obama is not a natural born citizen,
that he individually has been injured by that fact.

Which leads to the question, if a voter can't challenge a
presidential candidate's qualification under the US Constitution, then
who can?

The so-called standing doctrine is intended to ensure that the
plaintiff has a personal stake in a lawsuit. That's an
over-simplification of the issue, but that's how it's usually put.

Whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" is important because the US Constitution requires that as a pre-requisite to becoming President.

The Pennsylvania court took a pass on this question, and I think it's a very serious issue. Consider this:

What if Obama is elected president, and later is found to not be a "natural born citizen?"

What happens to whatever bills he has signed into law? Are they enforceable?

And the bigger questions: What happens while the courts are
deciding whether Obama is qualified to be president under our
constitution? Who will have undisputed authority as commander in chief?
Would this be an opportune time for our enemies to attack?

Remember what happened when the courts got involved in the Gore/Bush election? This will be much worse.

The lawyer that brought this lawsuit in Pennsylvania is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He has been criticized for being a "9/11 truther," detracting from his credibility.

Mr. Berg alleges that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and that
even if he was born in Hawaii, his citizenship was changed to
Indonesia, the country of his stepfather, when he moved there and
entered an Indonesian school, because in order to do so he would have
had to have been an Indonesian citizen.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss Berg's complaint. The law
requires the court to assume that all of Berg's allegations are true
when ruling on that motion. The district court did so, and still
dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Berg would not be
individually harmed by a presidential candidate that was not a
naturally born citizen.

The only ones I've heard talk about strengthening our economy for
the benefit of all of us have been conservatives like Thomas Sowell.
And he should know. He recently wrote:

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives
on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is
especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety
and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the
facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation,
and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because
they like his words or style.

Of the four people running for
president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets,
the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls —
Barack Obama.

Some of Senator Obama’s most fervent supporters
could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime,
education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac —
much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear
nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist
networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word
“change” makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some
think that what is needed is blank-check “change.”

But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where “change” turned problems into catastrophes.

In
czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today
and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than
anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the
rights of Americans today. So they went for “change.”

That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars'
despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in
one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the
millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly
replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even
worse than what went before.

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will
make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as
inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th century leaders
with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers
or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.

What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that
might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he
is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons
on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding
physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to
abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on
Fannie Mae-- and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign
contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign
sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington"
that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of
"change."

The public has been told very little about what this man with the
wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us
wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true
believers-- which includes many in the media-- it is just a question of
whether you like him or not.

October 19, 2008

With gas tax revenues declining with more fuel efficient vehicles
and less driving, governments are looking for ways to increase their
revenues. In Texas, some counties have been invited to participate in a study
where GPS devices will be placed on participants' vehicles, to measure
their mileage. Then the government will send them a "make believe bill"
to show them how much they might be taxed under the proposed mileage
tax.

Just think of it: if this mileage tax becomes law in your part of
the country, you will have the opportunity of paying more in taxes even
though you're using less gasoline, at the same time that the government
will have records of where you've been at any given moment.

October 18, 2008

Thank goodness for Mark Perry bringing to light the plain facts generally ignored by the mainstream media unless they support the media's agenda.

For example -- now this we can see with our own eyes just by watching the falling prices at the pump, but Dr. Perry crunches the numbers and shows us that the falling prices will save consumers between $156 and 188 billion annually.

Falling Gas Prices Over The Last Month Will Save Consumers $156 to $188 Billion Annually

And then there's the dollar. I remember seeing news stories about
it when it was falling, but I haven't heard much in a while. Does that
mean there's good news out there?
Turns out the dollar is at an 18 month high.

October 16, 2008

October 09, 2008

Like Leona Helmsley, some elitists believe that as long as you have
a lot of money, you needn't worry about your carbon footprint.
Check this out. The starting price for this little jaunt is $64,950:

Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by a luxury
private jet. Touch down in some of the most astonishing places on the
planet to see the top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos,
lemurs and toucans. Explore natural and cultural treasures in remote
areas of South America, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and Africa.

To reach these remote corners, travel on a specially outfitted
private jet that carries just 88 passengers in business-class comfort.
World-class experts – including WWF's director of species conservation
– will provide a series of lectures en route, and a professional staff
will be devoted to making your global adventure seamless and memorable.

Yes, it's sponsored by WWF, the World Wildlife Fund. Another page on its site reminds us of the seriousness of climate change:

Climate change is the number one environmental issue of
the 21st century. And the United States is one of the largest
contributors of greenhouse gases, with nearly five times the world
average in carbon emissions

But never mind that if you have enough bucks to pay to the WWF to go on its "luxury private jet" to see amazing wildlife.

Reminds me of the film, "Mine Your Own Business," a film begun by
filmmakers who initially wanted to serve the environmental goals that
they believed environmental organizations were pursuing, but who, in
the process of making the documentary, uncovered appalling inhumanity.
They capture in their film the incredible condescension of WWF bigwig
who showed off his yacht, while talking about how the quaint natives
really didn't need progress to lift them out of poverty. Watch the trailer.

"There's a highly capitalized and organized opposition
funded mostly by big foundations that oppose any development." He
likened the effort, which he said includes Greenpeace, World Wildlife
Fund, Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and Christian
Aid, to a destroy all the traditional, blue-collar industries and turn
the West into "a playground for the rich."